Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

bought a new build house last year (26th august handover date), the house is a 3 bed detached with driveway leading to garage and front garden. i wanted to rip up all the front garden and turn it into extra parking space as we have 3 cars.
i asked jelsons, i asked my solicitor and nobody could give me a clear yes or no. in the end i spoke with the 2 site managers who told me to speak with the council, so i spoke with them who told me i have full permitted development rights and any surface at the front must be a permeable surface ie gravel. so i got my landscaper to carry out the work, using a proper sub base/permeable weed fabric and white gravel on top with a block paved edge.

this was 11 months ago (sept 2017 work was completed)

today i have had a letter stating that i must remove all the gravel and replace with turf as the county council highways consultant will not adopt the road due to loose gravel within 5 meters from the highway. we have 60 days to complete this or face possible court action. there are two other properties on my street that have done the same and also had the same letter.

my argument is that the council have said as long as i use the correct surface i have full development rights. also when we took the property from jelsons it comes with gravel leading down to the path/road so how can they expect me to dig mine up when they clearly provide it to you.

here is a before and after pic, a pic of the letter and a pic of my neighbours driveway with gravel provided by jelsons.

im totally digging my heels in on this one. anybody had any similar issues or can see a weak point in my defence.

What a shame that four properties so far have ripped up what were quite attractive front lawns and paths and replaced them with an unsightly mass of gravel. It looks terrible. As well as perhaps being unpopular with neighbours if you delay the adoption of the road, I suspect some aren't happy that the reality of their street looks nothing like the relatively green frontages in the brochures and showhomes.

In reality, it's inevitable that most will go the same route and what was once quite an attractive street will look like a badly organised car dealership in a builder's yard.

According to that a restrictive standard of no more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling on average was applied as part of a condition on the outline application. This includes designated on-street bays.

Unless there was a change of policy it would be difficult to believe that PD rights to create additional parking spaces were not removed. Otherwise what was the point in setting that restrictive standard?

If you were a planning officer you wouldn't find it strange at all. Most of them regard cars as a visual intrusion on the streetscape and many would favour an outright ban on front-garden parking in residential areas.

Hard landscaped gardens are also the planning officers equivalent of stone cladding.

If you were a planning officer you wouldn't find it strange at all. Most of them regard cars as a visual intrusion on the streetscape and many would favour an outright ban on front-garden parking in residential areas.

According to that a restrictive standard of no more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling on average was applied as part of a condition on the outline application. This includes designated on-street bays.

Unless there was a change of policy it would be difficult to believe that PD rights to create additional parking spaces were not removed. Otherwise what was the point in setting that restrictive standard?

From what the OP has said there is appears to be no legal justification to take action against him. The Builder messed up by not ensuring there was a covenant to ensure front gardens could not be changed ( at least until they finished building and washed their hands of the development).

If the changes he has mage to his front garden comply with permitted development, there is no action the council can take against him either.

To move forward the the OP has to make changes to allow the the road to be adopted. I would look to ask the builder to help with the cost invlolved.

Correct, removal/restriction of PD rights is not automatic, but is commonly done by planning authorities on new builds to ensure conditions and restrictions for the development are not circumvented by individual householders.

As I said, it is difficult (but not impossible) to believe that PD rights for creating additional parking spaces were not removed.

The first thing the OP ought to check is the PD status in relation to parking areas (and also any planning restrictions against the new(?) fence between his front garden and the neighbours).

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.